Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Remove ‘Sex Offender’ From Opening Statement

Articles in Wikipedia about Mike Tyson do not designate him as a ‘convicted rapist’ or Tim Allen as a ‘convicted drug dealer’. Wkipedia should remove ‘convicted sex offender’from the Bill Cosby biography article. Also the conviction is under appeal and biases the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.174.169 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how it was handled in other articles. Each article stands on its own merits. Bill Cosby was convicted as a sex offender. It is the truth, and it is noteworthy. As such, it belongs in the lead. SentientParadox (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The other articles cited, Tyson and Allen,meet encyclopedia standards in their opening statements and are precedents for the Cosby article. Cosby is appealing the jury decision so yet may establish his innocence so by due process there is no ‘truth’ yet established by historical or encyclopedic standards. Sincerely 107.77.245.12 (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

When judging whether (and where) to put something in the lead, we look at the weight among sources. The accusations against Cosby (and the ensuing conviction) has gotten far more coverage, comparatively, than the other things you mentioned, and other aspects of his biography have been overshadowed or re-contextualized by it. Tyson is still covered as perhaps the most famous heavyweight champion of all time; Tim Allen is still covered primarily as an actor. Cosby is covered today almost exclusively as a sex offender (and it's far enough off from the accusations that I don't think we can say that this is WP:RECENTISM.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper that ‘covers’ issues. The Cosby ‘conviction’ is not as yet a settled matter of law or history as it is undergoing a series of legal appeals that should be noted in the opening statement. The current statement again is inconsistent with the encyclopedic standards of the above cited articles. Plus no ‘coverage’ of Cosby has any significance without citing his life achievements for which he is most noted for. The argument that ‘Millennial’ and Gen X only know Cosby for the recent trial activity is specious as an example of ‘recent’. The current opening statement is biased, racist, lacks the balance of the appeal process and is non encyclopedic.107.77.245.12 (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is ever permanently settled. WP:RECENTISM is a concern, yes, but we also have to have our articles reflect currently-available information as much as possible - beyond a certain point, speculating that things might drastically change in the future is getting into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. Beyond that, your argument that coverage of Cosby must focus on other aspects to be valid reads like a No True Scotsman fallacy - you're essentially saying you have a preconceived notion of how he should be covered, and will only accept sources that reflect that coverage. That's not how we work; what matters is the general reliability of the sources we use - whether they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If the sources overwhelmingly treat the idea that he's a sexual predator as a fact, and treat his appeals or denials as no longer credible or worthy of attention, then (after a certain point) we have to respect that and reflect that in our coverage. For a WP:BLP the bar for that is very high, but I think it's pretty reasonable to say that Cosby meets it given the volume and generally unified tone of coverage over the past year or so. --Aquillion (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The ‘coverage’ of Cosby is now about the appeals and the flaws in the trial process and the overturning of the conviction...,From the Chicago Sun Times..Bill Cosby is behind bars, but that doesn’t mean his sexual assault case is over. Cosby’s lawyers are vowing to appeal his conviction, and they’ve already outlined some potential issues — from Judge Steven O’Neill’s weighty decision to let five additional accusers testify at Cosby’s retrial to new allegations that prosecutors used a doctored tape as evidence. Cosby is appealing the conviction on multiple grounds. Wikipedia should not use non-encyclopedia language that creates a biased (and possibly racist) perspective for readers by not acknowledging The appeal process in the opening statement. With all due respect 107.77.165.7 (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, accusing editors of racism does not help your cause. Completely ridiculous. Moondyne (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct that in a BLP article even the appearance of bias or racism is of concern in an encyclopedic format. The editor is also correct that there is equal notoriety in the coverage of the Cosby appeal process as part of Cosby’s legal rights to seek a new trial. Adding “the conviction is under appeal” acknowledgment corrects both the appearance of bias or racism in the article. The IP editor seems to say the article appears biased not the editors who act in good faith. The IP editor has shown an RS (Chicago Tribune) as does the New York Times and other major RS sources emphasizing the importance of the legal appeal process for balance in a BLP article. The Best To You All 24.113.150.218 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

An IP claimed there was consensus for adding the appeal to the opening statement. I do not see any such consensus here. I see two favoring it and at least two against any change. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Richard The IP editor you cite from the edit history is correct as they suggested ‘modifications’ to the lead sentence by mentioning the appeal process and correctly cited the NYT as an RS for BLP balance. The IP editor was taking into account the entire talk page accounts not just this section. With Respect 24.113.150.218 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Still not seeing consensus. I want you to know I am neutral on it. If I saw it, I would say so. I just do not see it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing the lede to include "...and a convicted felon." would suffice, as per the example of years of Public Relations people editing the Michael Milkin article shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.243.115.38 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists aside, Michael Milkin is not a sex offender and his crimes are detailed in the lead of his article. This is the same here. I see no compelling policy reason or consensus to cover up Cosby's crime by hiding it under the label "convicted felon" or in any other way removing it from the lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster on this topic, I’ve always seen this as a weird passive-aggressive thing that Wikipedia does. Many subjects with Wikipedia pages who have been convicted/accused of heinous crimes (particularly sexual ones)- Jared Fogle, Victor Salva, Stephen Collins, Roman Polanski, Allison Mack, OJ Simpson (for robbery)- the opening paragraphs of their articles all mention their crimes immediately and/or the fact that they’re a felon, child molestor, etc. It’s as if the Wikipedia community is trying to punish them by identifying them as felons as early as possible in the article. Since these crimes aren’t the reason these people are famous, this never seemed appropriate to me for an encyclopedia to “go out of its way” like this to bring these facts to the reader’s attention. I still think the crimes should be mentioned in the article, just not within the opening sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B011:8359:150A:8E14:F303:B8D9 (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You are right. And there's already a guideline that exists specifically for those concerns, MOS:LEADBIO. However, I think that the formatting is acceptable in the cases of people like Jared Fogle and Phil Spector. Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

BUNCH of NONSENSE - Keep it simple, "convicted sex offender", what is it that he WAS active in ??? Sentence does NOT make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwdamron (talk • contribs)

He was active as a stand-up comedian, actor, musician, and author. Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Convicted sex offender is accurate. However, convicted felon would also be accurate, if that makes anyone happier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301D:1B04:C100:F873:65CF:E3C1:EBF (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• In reference to repeated attempts to add "[...] and convicted sex offender":

MOS:LEADBIO#Positions and roles: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. [...] However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. [...] In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included the lead paragraph if: [...] the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)." Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ll have to remember to add that Tim Allen is a convicted drug dealer in the first sentence of his lead since that seems to be what we do on here now. Bmorrow151 (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

His conviction does not need to mentioned in the first sentence of his article. It is already mentioned further down in detail. Bmorrow151 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is the terrible inconsistency. Wikipedia should start off my defining how many characters should be used to summarize the content subject, and use the Google/Bing results as a guideline. I mean, it is odd that for instance, someone like Gary Glitter doesn't have his "activities" mentioned in the starting summary paragraph or sentence at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccarran (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This debate comes up occasionally on biographies where an independently notable person is found guilty. The intro or lead sentence and the multi-paragraph intro section are most often the points of focus. There's no clear answer either way and consensus can shift on a per-article basis. Counter-examples to the current article texts of Mike Tyson and Tim Allen (that's a new one to me!) are Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer) ("convicted sex offender") and Martha Stewart ("convicted felon"). Dinesh D'Souza used to say "convicted felon" but it got removed in December 2018 given his pardon. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, based on other profiles such as Mike Tyson. Fix it here or fix it there. And there is everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.55.7 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

Edit the Music Career Section: what instruments did Cosby play? 84.92.196.225 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If you find sources that discuss it, you can link to them here. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

Can someone add information to the Music Career section? 62.30.153.194 (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not for general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead with sex offender

Harvey Weinstein’s page leads with “is an American convicted sex offender and former film producer.” Why doesn’t Bill Cosby’s page lead with “is an American convicted sex offender and former stan-up comedian...” Mikelebonenfant (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mikelebonenfant, neither article should lead with "X is a convicted sex offender". I'm taking it out of Harvey's article since you brought it up. Cosby is notable for his comedy, not his sex crimes. The sex crimes are an important part of the biography, but not the reason he has one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

”Not notable for his sex crimes?” Are you living under a rock? Get real. His crimes have become more notable than his work. Google his name and tell me that is t what you find now. What is notable about a person does change over time and due to their actions. It IS notable and should stay in the lead. To deny that is to be an ostrich with its head in the sand. SentientParadox (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"What is notable about a person does change over time" ... I cannot believe what I'm reading. Wikipedia has hit a new low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.125 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

sources

sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.252.78 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, yes . . . sources. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait, what? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Silver Throat, Bill Cosby Sings??

I noticed that the sentence talking about Cosby releasing this album where he sings as needing a citation. What kind of citation is needed when the sentence states a fact about an album whose title strongly implies it does not contain standup comedy routines, but music? I'm willing to find a source, but I'm under the impression the article is protected which I assume means I cannot do the cite myself. Is my understanding correct? Thanks! THX1136 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I found one and added it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

Please change:

“Cosby's reputation was tarnished during the mid-2010s when numerous women made sexual assault accusations against him, the earliest dating back to 1965.”

To:

“During the mid-2010s numerous women made sexual assault accusations against him, the earliest dating back to 1965.”

His reputation being tarnished is, IMHO, editorializing and unnecessary. It also seems to imply the accusations tarnished his reputation rather than his own actions. He has, after all, been convicted of the accusations. Wikipedia should not throw shade (either by implication or by allowing for the possibility of inference) on the facts. 2601:180:109:30C5:7D4A:A003:8D63:6D36 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done I do agree that the headline is the accusations, not his reputation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Snopp Dogg

Multiple news outlets have reported on Snopp Dogg calling for the release of Bill Cosby. I think this should potentially be added to the article.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/bill-cosby-thanks-snoop-dog-calling-his-freedom-n1132796

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8550382/bill-cosby-thanks-snoop-dogg-gayle-king-kobe-bryant-rape-question/

https://www.vulture.com/2020/02/bill-cosby-tweet-snoop-dogg.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/bill-cosby-snoop-dogg-prison-instagram-twitter-gayle-king-kobe-bryant-michael-jackson-a9323726.html

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-cosby-snoop-dogg-kobe-bryant_n_5e3cd1e8c5b6b70886fd2978

https://www.okayplayer.com/culture/bill-cosby-thanks-snoop-dogg.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7976965/Bill-Crosby-tweets-Snoop-Dog-prison-defense-rappers-criticism-Gayle-King.html

https://newsone.com/3901694/bill-cosby-snoop-dogg-capes-black-men-oprah-and-gayle-king/

Thestickman391 (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Meh. GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A three letter response followed by a period, a space and over 250 characters of signature mock-up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentence is verbose

Change "William Henry Cosby Jr. is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author who held an active career for over six decades before being convicted of a number of sex offenses in 2018." To "William Henry Cosby Jr. is an American stand-up comedian, actor, author, and convicted sex offender."Sergei zavorotko (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Conviction overturned, and he can't be prosecuted again for that offense. 50.111.27.153 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrong prosecutor

The part on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacating Cosby's conviction says that Kevin Steele made a non prosecution agreement with Cosby, when it was actually Bruce Castor who struck the deal, whose Wikipedia article also refers to the agreement with Cosby. Please correct this mistake and name Castor as the one who struck the deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Castor#Notable_cases. 2607:FEA8:88A0:420D:A4FD:A230:21DF:1920 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

From what it appears, the change which you are asking for has already been made in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Include Cosby's MA from UMass Amherst, which he earned prior to his Doctorate of Education, in the infobox. 76.71.157.66 (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done UserTwoSix (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit to move recent info to Bill Cosby sexual assault cases

User:TrueQuantum Earlier you reverted my moving of recent information relating to the overturned conviction with this edit summary:

"Before sequestering this large swatch of information to a separate page, we should allow the larger Wikipedia community and editors to comment and contribute on an important current event. This is the only way we can have an unbiased and high quality encyclopedia."

That is not related to reverting my edit on transferring details of a new event into a more relevant page. You seem to imply that I'm disallowing what you contended. My transferring detailed information to a more relevant page detailing his sexual assault cases has no impact on having other users contribute, nor compromising the neutrality or reliabilty of the articles in question. Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Joey.J (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected and will go along with the consensus here. Thanks! TrueQuantum (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The content now that that the judgement has been vacated (and wont be re-tried meaning it will unlikely be the subject of ongoing coverage) is largely undue, and only an appropriate part of the article should be attributed to it. The article subject was a very famous person for decades and thus has a huge number of sources, so while the recent events were high profile, it is not the only high profile event in this subject's life. Also as the subject was never convicted, we have to follow WP:BLP and err on the side of caution. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

5th and 14th amendments mention

The article currently contains the sentence, "On June 30, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Cosby's convictions due to violations of Cosby's 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights." There is no mention of either amendment in the source that is subsequently cited, nor can I find a source anywhere online mentioning his 14th amendment rights at all, only his 5th amendment rights. I'm not sure how the 14th amendment even enters into it at all, although that may be due to my not being American and not fully understanding the law involved. Not having an account at least 4 days old, etc. I can't do anything about this, so thought I'd mention it here in case someone else can. 5.198.76.62 (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That sentence failed verification. The ruling does mention 14th Amendment, but I don't see reliable secondary sources covering it. Changed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Cosby's conviction, citing violations of his due process rights starship.paint (exalt) 13:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Evidently my Google-fu is weak! Cheers 5.198.76.62 (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times mentions the 14th Amendment right as well as many other articles. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/opinion/bill-cosby-released.html). In addition, the ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court quite literally states that Cosby's 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights were violated. I don't like Bill Cosby at all in fact I think he is a monster. That does not affect my judgment as an editor where I believe the actual facts, wherever they may lie, must be told so that the general public can come to its own conclusions. I believe it is extremely important that we cite the actual Constitutional rights the Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied upon in its ruling because too many social media users and cable news TV pundits are saying that Cosby was released based on a trivial technicality. The 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment are not trivial technicalities even if Cosby is a monster. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not WP:RS here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Many reliable sources and news media articles state that Bill Cosby's conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court because of a trivial technicality. The actual court ruling states that it was because of a big violation of his 5th and 14th Amendment rights. Perhaps we should go by the reliable sources and state that it was just a technicality? TrueQuantum (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment was definitely involved, specifically the due process clause, but it's not surprising that RS are focused on the 5th Amendment, which was more of a critical issue during this case. I am stepping into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory here, but I think it's likely that RS mentioning the 14th are likely to show up relatively soon, and I would prefer to wait. However, I think a case could be made that some minor use of WP:PRIMARY could be appropriate with attribution to Justice Wecht, whose majority opinion cites the 14th. Looks like Bill Cosby sexual assault cases is doing pretty much that as of this posting.

A technical point is that all violations of 5th Amendment rights by state actors are 14th Amendment violations too, as the 5th Amendment only applies to the states via incorporation through the 14th's Due Process clause. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense. It may seem like a trivial thing but having the 14th Amendment apply the due process clause to the states rather than just the federal government is quite critical to cases of criminal prosecution conducted by individual states. It's so critical in fact that court's ruling specifically uses it as justification. I just think it's somewhat weird that news media outlets do not mention it (perhaps because of the overwhelming public pressure to consider the court's ruling a mere technicality and loophole). TrueQuantum (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Overturned conviction not appropriate for introduction

Martha Stewart’s felony conviction still stands, yet it is deemed not relevant enough to include in the opening paragraph. So why is Bill Cosby’s overturned conviction more relevant? I understand people may feel it is important since his successful appeal occurred today, but that smells like recentism, a trait I thought was discouraged here. The fact that his conviction was overturned means just that… that the conviction no longer applies to him and should only be mentioned in the section regarding that case. Joey.J (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't your desire to take it out of the lead an effect of recentism? Martha Stewart's conviction is not at all the same as Cosby's, and should have no bearing on what is done on this page. The conviction, overturned or not, is a major event in a major cultural moment and should not be removed from the lead, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu, the conviction and it being overturned is relevant and an important detail which has a place within the lead. It will most likely be what many remember Cosby by and thus earns a place in the lead. Jurisdicta (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

""Recentism"? This is supposed to be a word? TheScotch (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

TheScotch, WP:RECENTISM is a policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The point is not that Cosby was accused, or convicted, or later freed. In writing a BLP, we should recognize that he is now most famous for his supposed crimes. This may revert at some point, but it would be WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume that. I think O. J. Simpson would be a good template, where the second line reads "Once a popular figure with the U.S. public, he is now best known for being tried for the murders..." This precisely matches the public perception of Cosby. I honestly think it should be much higher up in the intro than it is now. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The comparison to O.J. Simpson is not remotely fair. O.J. was charged with murder (something far worse than rape) and got the best professional defense. It was afterwards and especially when he nearly confessed to the murders, that people believed he was guilty (though IMHO, I doubt O.J. could have acted alone). This is in stark contrast to the case(s) of Bill Cosby who had been tried in the media (and social media) beforehand (and that was wrong) and then subsequently subjugated to a travesty of justice (the worst the defense lawyer Tom Mesereau claimed to have ever seen). This site only skims the procedural injustices in the creation of both trials, it does not even show how dysfunctional both court cases were. The first case ends in mistrial because of one or two conscientious objectors. The second trial was a kangaroo court relying e.g. on testimony beyond the statutes of limitations, so-called experts to buttress highly questionable testimonies for the prosecution, the selection of a woke jury, etc.. I did not even mention the political dimension of these trials. Wikipedia is supposed to be an (objective) encyclopedia, not a social media forum for SJWs. I have no doubt that Bill Cosby's nightmares are far from over and that he will face pressure from the media and public prosecution. Time will tell. However, in the meantime, if Wikipedia is to remain objective, it has to maintain a sufficient professional distance from the subject. I agree that the mention of the court trials should be taken out of the introduction.TonyMath (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Totally disagree with removing. The conviction, and overturning, is an important part of Cosby's life, with ample reliable source coverage. This reminds me of a certain George Pell. starship.paint (exalt) 12:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of you seem unaware that “public perception” is significantly shaped by Wikipedia itself. To suggest that a reversed accusation of crime is somehow significantly contributory to public perception because you want to make it such, and continue doing so, is the last thing from objective. Joey.J (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@JoeyJ: - we're unlikely to change each other's opinions. How about you start an WP:RFC on the matter on whether to remove the incident from the introduction? starship.paint (exalt) 13:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - The edit I suggested has been made, so I am satisfied this issue has been resolved. Joey.J (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"George Lopez has hosted the event since then"

Please remove vanity name-dropping. 89.8.109.176 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sexual assault cases

Should this section be renamed to "Sexual assault allegations"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not social media nor a court of public opinion. No matter what we personally may think about Bill Cosby, we as editors have a duty to make this place as objective as possible based on the facts. When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Cosby's conviction due to the violation of his 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights, they essentially force us to adhere to WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. When he was convicted of sexual misconduct, those policies allowed us to definitively say that Cosby was guilty and that these were sexual assault cases. Now that the conviction is literally overturned, those policies demand that we change the title back to allegations. This is not a place to right great wrongs. Our personal opinions cannot come into play or we jeopardize the objectivity of Wikipedia. We are not the media nor are we cable news pundits. We must adhere to our own policies as written both in spirit and by the wording. TrueQuantum (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I support your proposed change. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence says that he is a "retired" such-and-such. Is that accurate? Who says that he retired? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadero is probably correct. With some professions, a person is retired from their job but not their professional qualifications. For example, a person with a DDS degree is a dentist, end of story. If they had a practice and closed it or if they worked for a dental school as a professor and retired from that position, they are a retired dentist. Otherwise, they are still a dentist.

Acting is a bit unclear because acting training is highly variable. If Bill Cosby's production company of which he is the only employee is still incorporated, then he is not retired, even if an inactive actor.

This is my judgment and I have tried to be completely neutral and analytical. My impression, however, is that he is an actor, not a retired actor. Charliestalnaker (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. He has been in the news a lot, lately. And I thought that I read he was producing a new documentary or some such. I don't think that he is "retired" ... and was surprised to see that word in his lead sentence. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A somewhat relevant article: Bill Cosby rep floats return to comedy clubs. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Please Un-Revert My Edit

TheSandDoctor reverted my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby&type=revision&diff=1031281246&oldid=1031281224 reinstating a factually wrong statement about the Cosby decision. The true fact is that the court did not decide Cosby's claims about the prior bad acts testimony. See http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/j-100-2020mo%20-%20104821740139246918.pdf and my note for the edit stated "The 30 Jun 2021 opinion ends with footnote 35, which states "Accordingly, we do not address Cosby’s other issue." Thus, there was no decision on the use of "prior bad acts" testimony." So, why the revert? ElbonianFL (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Who are you? Sign your posts with four tildas ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ) - 50.111.27.153 (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a primary source - you need to find a scholarly secondary source that interprets it - otherwise it is Original Research. 50.111.27.153 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This didn't come through as a ping. It was an unintentional revert ElbonianFL. I was on mobile and unaware that anything was being changed aside from the cite template fix. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"Billy Cosby" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Billy Cosby. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 4#Billy Cosby until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Will Cosby" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Will Cosby. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 4#Will Cosby until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

His innocence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since he was found to be innocent now and his conviction overturned, meaning all the allegations were made up, we should say as much in the article. Amirite homies???? Whose with me here?! 2601:280:4:3D15:C12:7D92:1B56:305B (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The conviction was vacated (aka quashed). This is a far cry from found innocent. The evidence that his accusations were "made up" is flimsy and only applies to a few of the accusations and not the one he was jailed for. The article already addresses all that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong here. I don't like Cosby nor do I support him in any way. But our Constitutional rights do not require us to be "found innocent" in a court of law. Anyone, whether it is Bill Cosby, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, or Bill Clinton is PRESUMED INNOCENT until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This has been the standard since the days of the Magna Carta to prevent Kings from chopping off people's heads on a whim. Without this standard, we have stuff like the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism, and so forth. Going after rapists and sexual predators is all well and good. But to change the standard of what constitutes the presumption of innocence is something that is only done in authoritarian regimes like North Korea and the Soviet Union. Not a good standard to have. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV lede

I dont think Cosby was "found guilty" if that was subsequently overturned. I believe the judgement was vacatated. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Changed. In April 2018, during the MeToo movement, Cosby was convicted of three counts of aggravated indecent assault in a jury trial. He was jailed for over two years before the conviction was overturned in June 2021 due to violations of Cosby's due process rights. starship.paint (exalt) 12:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

if the conviction is vacated, were you ever convicted? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know. Not an expert in U.S. law. Asked WT:LAW for opinions. starship.paint (exalt) 13:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If you dont know and I dont know, then we can err or the side of caution. We can wikilink to Vacated judgment anyhow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure Jtbobwaysf - give it a shot. starship.paint (exalt) 14:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint and Jtbobwaysf: "Vacated judgment" states that it makes the previous judgement legally void as if it never happened, so I gather that it even saying convicted may be too much. However, I am too unsure to act on that, but believe that saying it was overturned/vacated is an important pairing. I'm also interested in what WT:LAW has to say. I am far from a legal expert of any sort, but Cosby may even technically be able to sue for wrongful imprisonment given the gravity of what occurred and the finding...namely the fact the supreme court found the conduct to be so improper they barred prosecutors from ever reopening the matter. ("Should" and "technically can" are two different things, not commenting or offering any advice to anyone. Just would definitely make for a potentially interesting scenario) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with you SandDoctor, I am opposed to using the word convicted and I removed it from teh article earlier. I am not lawyer, but vacated means it never happened in my english. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I came here from WT:LAW. My training is in English rather than US law, but my reading of the ruling is that it invalidates the conviction. The effect of invalidating his conviction is a legal fiction - to the law, he is not and has never been a convict. As a matter of reality, however, the lower court's ruling obviously was in force for these 3 years, and Cosby lived and was treated as a convict.

I think it is not incorrect to say that he was convicted by a lower court and the conviction was overturned on appeal. But in the interests of NPOV, I think it is important not to use the word "convict" or "conviction" without making it very clear that the conviction was overturned. Perhaps an emphasis on his confessions rather than the conviction is more appropriate - it will enable us to include the things he did without running into this snag. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the above. I’m also an English rather than US lawyer and one would normally say convicted but the conviction was “quashed” (in our terminology = vacated). While it’s true that the conviction never happened legally, it did happen as a matter of historical fact - so that form of words is the way it’s usually expressed to cover both angles. DeCausa (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kohlrabi Pickle and DeCausa: - thank you for weighing in with your informed opinion! Would like to also hear if the current lede is adequately representing the situation: In 2018 Cosby was imprisoned for aggravated indecent assault against Andrea Constand.[3] The judgment was overturned in 2021... starship.paint (exalt) 09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The only comment I would make on that wording is that in the UK referring to a jury trial outcome as a “judgment” isn’t quite right. That suggests a decision by a judge. Terminology may be differently used in the US but I would expect to see the word “conviction” instead. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint Happy to help. I'm not that well acquainted with criminal law, so I'll defer to DeCausa on this one. Technically, it looks correct otherwise. Also, just a matter of style, but I think it would read more crisply if you said instead "Cosby was convicted of aggravated..." and then "The conviction was overturned in 2021...". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Kohlrabi Pickle has it exactly right. He was, indeed, convicted; that verb is correct. Then the conviction was overturned; although he was convicted, he no longer stands convicted, and it would be incorrect to call him a "convict".

Using "imprisoned" as a substitute for "convicted" is awkward and misleading and unnecessary. It makes it sound like he was imprisoned without a trial, without ever having been convicted, which in fact is not the case.

(U.S. lawyer, here, by the way; but exclusively civil, not criminal, and rarely a litigator, for what that's worth.) TJRC (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kohlrabi Pickle, DeCausa, and TJRC: - thank you again. I have updated the lede accordingly! starship.paint (exalt) 12:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Seems there is a local consensus here and I am ok with the present formulation. I dont know how the WP:LAW guideline looks at it, but as an editor said above he was indeed convicted (in the past tense), then jailed, then exonerated (legally, but certainly not in the court of public opinion). I think the present formulation more or less fits that reality. I often weigh in on these controversial BLPs, and even got banned from one, even though I dont have much of an actual interest in the subject. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's important for there to be editors like you Jtbobwaysf who are willing to get involved in controversial BLPs and to advocate for sticking to Wikipedia's policies rather than whatever is currently trending in public opinion. We are living in the midst of an unprecedented accusation culture and so WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME are more important than ever before. Objectivity and neutrality, especially when it comes to the most reviled members of society, is paramount. It's not easy to do, but it is absolutely necessary for a high quality encyclopedia and information resource. TrueQuantum (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@TrueQuantum: who are the editors in this thread the threads on this page supporting “whatever is currently trending in public opinion” against Jtbobwaysf’s supposed “sticking up to (sic) Wikipedia’s policies”. Sounds like you don’t understand the discussion(s). DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Buddy, I never mentioned any editors "supporting whatever is currently trending in public opinion." I was just giving moral support to Jtbobwaysf after he said that he "often weigh[s] in on these controversial BLPs, and even got banned from one." Sounds like you get unusually defensive and then accuse me of not understanding the discussion(s). Let's just keep things civil here. Not everything is about you. TrueQuantum (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have wikilinked to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which is what I saw develop here with the follow up edit from Starship.paint (talk · contribs) where starship was not advocating any particular POV and was an interloper here as much as I was (at least from what I saw). Starship pinged me in the edit where he/she changed it back and I appreciated that. @TrueQuantum: I agree with you that this accusation culture is in violation of 5 pillars and should be pushed back against. But I also found the atty's position above that he was convicted and then later exonerated, so i was ok with it. I am not ok with some other editor's attempts to expand the lede with accusations, notes on how important Cosby is in cancel culture, etc. Its all POV in my opinion. I think you are right that it might be useful to have a broader discussion, maybe a RFC (here or elsewhere) to see how we deal with these accusations in general, not only on this article but on others. It shouldnt be ok to accuse someone of something on twitter and good morning america, absent any conviction, and expect this to get all kinds of space in a lede of an article where the subject is already very very notable for a long time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

allegations should be mentioned in lede

-regardless of conviction, the allegations have affected his legacy enough that the first sentence should contain an objective reference to them ("In the mid 2010's, over 60 women accused Cosby of sexual assault." Something like that.) Also, the word "comedian" is used twice, take out the word "comedian" after stand-up comedian since it feels redundant

-also, the words "during the MeToo movement" when mentioning his allegations in the lede feel subjective, implying that his conviction was solely the result of the movement. I say we remove these words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaprocky7121 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the recent edits feel sanitized in Cosby’s favor and don’t feel neutral. There’s a way to objectively talk about the cases and accurately reflect how they’ve clouded his legacy while still remaining neutral. 2600:1012:B1B1:AA7D:31E0:B9FF:1943:F0A8 (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Accusations are WP:UNDUE on this WP:BLP. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Crowell78 Please discuss your proposed changes to the lead of a BLP when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Cosby's conviction based on Constitutional due process violations. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Our job here as editors is to report the facts from reliable sources and to give extra cautionary treatment to the biography of living persons, especially in the lead. TrueQuantum (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The reversal was about the one case, it doesn't deal with the 60+ allegations of sexual assault from other women whose statute of limitations has passed. Before removing material from the lead which has been WP:STABLE, you should ideally seek consensus instead of arbitrarily removing it because it suits your view.

Articles on Wikipedia are to be written in a neutral way, covering all important aspects. The drugging and raping allegations have tarnished his legacy and have been covered endlessly by reliable sources. It's what he's been known for the last many years, and received extensive coverage for; certainly not about his movies or comedy. Therefore, it is reasonable that it should be mentioned in the lead. It's a summary of a key section and it's written in a neutral way that makes it clear these are allegations and nothing has been proven. Using BLP policy as an excuse to censor or whitewash content is not ok.

You also adding "at the height of the Me Too movement" prior to his imprisonment suggests that he was found guilty because of #MeToo when the accusations began in 2014 and this last trial initially began before as well. It's misleading and isn't neutral but POV. --Crowell78 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia absolutely must be written in a neutral way regardless of our personal opinions, hatred or distaste of the subject, and any other emotionally charged feelings we may have. It is especially important to be neutral and objective when there is a current event involving a biography of a living person who may be reviled as a monster and sexual predator in the court of public opinion. We are dealing with a situation here where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the sexual misconduct conviction for Bill Cosby due to what the court stated was the district attorney's violation of Cosby's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the 14th Amendment right to due process. That is not a trivial matter or some loophole or technicality. In fact, by our own policies as editors on Wikipedia, we must follow the guidelines laid out in WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. Everything in the lead prior to the Supreme Court ruling was justified because Cosby was CONVICTED and found GUILTY of sexual assault. Per WP:BLPCRIME convictions in a court of law are absolutely included in a biography of a living person and can be included in the lead. With the conviction overturned, no matter how you may personally feel about it, the lead must be changed per WP:BLPCRIME. We are Wikipedia editors not media journalists, social media influencers, or cable TV pundits. We do not have the luxury nor the latitude to have our own personal opinions reflected in what we write about or contribute to an encyclopedia. Personally, I don't like Bill Cosby at all. But as an editor I know how to put my personal feelings aside for the greater good of building an objective encyclopedia that adheres to our own policies no matter how we may feel about it. That is my duty and that is your duty here as well. We are not here to right great wrongs. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You need to stop citing "righting great wrongs" ad nauseam, because it doesn't apply here. And like I said, using BLP as an excuse for arbitrary removal of long-standing and uncontroversial text isn't valid either. The accusations were in the lead for a long time before you removed it, which means that a consensus of editors decided it deserved a place there. I know very well what Wikipedia is and isn't. And you haven't addressed your POV addition of "at the height of the me too movement".

If Cosby had been found guilty of sexually assaulting Andrea Constand, does that mean that he is guilty of sexually assaulting all the other women who have accused him? No. If he had been found not guilty, does that mean that he is not guilty of sexually assaulting all the others? No. So, including or excluding the countless allegations, based on whether he's guilty or not guilty for this one case isn't a strong argument. The allegations are unfortunately a part of his notability and it has been the subject of lengthy coverage in RS. Wikipedia is often a mirror of RS and that was my reasoning. Not personal feelings. I have no strong opinions either way about the person. I am just not in favor of censorship and whitewashing.

Wikipedia has a uneven standard when it comes to these issues. On some biographies these types of accusations and even much lesser ones are prominently laid out; on others they are minimized. My only interest is fairness and consistency throughout the encyclopedia. I have no interest in edit-warring over this. And other editors may share your view, which might very well be technically appropriate based on policies. I am however in full agreement with the two previous editors who posted in this thread. --Crowell78 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The policy that editors should not try to "right great wrongs" absolutely applies here because we are not supposed to inject our own personal opinions or emotions into our editing work. We are supposed to stick to our policies. You say that Wikipedia has an "uneven standard" when it comes to including contentious issues in the lede for the biographies of living persons. I disagree. Take a look at the many public figures accused of sexual assault, even those in positions of power that far and ahead dwarf that of Bill Cosby, and check to see if they are in the lede.

Example 1: President Joe Biden. He was accused by multiple women. These accusations are nowhere in the lede. There is one very short sentence buried way down in the article in a campaign section that goes like this: "In late March 2020, Tara Reade, one of the eight women who previously accused Biden of inappropriate physical contact, made a new allegation against Biden, accusing him of a 1993 sexual assault.[329] There were inconsistences between Reade's 2019 and 2020 allegations.[330] Biden and his campaign vehemently denied the sexual assault allegation.[331][332]"

Example 2: Former President Donald Trump. He was accused by perhaps hundreds of women. The accusations are nowhere to be found in the lede and are in fact buried in Section 7.7 out of 10 total sections.

Example 3: Former President Bill Clinton. He too was accused by many women. These accusations are likewise buried near the bottom of the article.

Keep in mind that these people are the Presidents of the United States, in positions of power that should make them held even more accountable than anyone else. I could go on and on but few if any public figures have sexual assault accusations in the lede of their living persons biography. The only exceptions are those who have actually been convicted of their crimes and therefore the accusations have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Such persons include Harvey Weinstein where the conviction is in the lede. This also included Bill Cosby when he was tried and convicted of his sexual misconduct charges in a court of law. That's why his lede contained the material. Now that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the conviction, this material by our own policies can no longer be included in the lede in a contentious fashion. That doesn't mean we censor them. In fact, these accusations from 60+ women are found in the body of Bill Cosby's article with entire prominent sections devoted to them. We must adhere to our own policies, particularly WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, and maintain consistency throughout this encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with protecting Cosby's image, who I personally think is abhorrent. This has everything to do with preserving the tenets of objectivity, neutrality, fairness, and everything we have a duty to protect as Wikipedia editors. Cosby is not worth it to throw away our principles. TrueQuantum (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting you use the example of three Presidents, whose articles are vital and garner more attention and scrutiny. Take a look at the Steven Seagal article. Sexual assault accusations in the lead despite no convictions. Andy Dick, the lead says he's "known.. for numerous sexual misconduct allegations" (!) despite no convictions. Kevin Spacey, accusations in the lead and yet no trial/convictions. Chris Hardwick's ex claimed he "emotionally and sexually abused" her, no conviction or proof but it's in the lead and even has three paragraphs in the body. There's probably more, but that is what I am talking about. As much as you assert BLP and BLPCRIME, often times whether this kind of information is in the lead depends on the editors watching the article and their personal opinion instead of a consistent policy. And applying the same treatment to others as you did here is met with resistance. "At the height of the metoo movement" still feels POV btw. Cheers. --Crowell78 (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"The policy that editors should not try to "right great wrongs" absolutely applies here because we are not supposed to inject our own personal opinions or emotions into our editing work." -- it doesn't apply here because it's a false accusation, a violation of WP:AGF, a baseless implication of motives, etc. -- Jibal (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely with Crowell78. The lead should specifically mention the accusations that have been made against Cosby. Even if Cosby had never gone to trial, the accusations against him would still be notable enough to mention in the lead. The fact that Cosby's conviction was overturned doesn't make the accusations any less notable.

I appreciate TrueQuantum's concern that that this material be presented neutrally, and I realize that this is a tricky issue, but I don't believe that mentioning the accusations in the lead would be a violation of neutrality nor do I see anything in WP:BLPCRIME stating that accusations can only be mentioned in the lead if they result in a conviction. The material will be presented in a neutral, objective manner, because the lead will mention that the conviction was overturned. But the accusations against Cosby have received so much news coverage - much of which preceded any criminal charges against Cosby - that I believe the actual violation of neutrality would be to leave the accusations out of the lead. Jpcase (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. One of the principles I strongly believe in as an editor on Wikipedia is consensus. Right now the consensus seems to be that accusations against Cosby should be included in the lead. I have accordingly added in these accusations and details in a manner I hope to be as neutral as possible and following the objective policies laid out without prejudice. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Except what you added now is false and misleading. He wasn't accused at the "height of the Me Too movement" in 2018. The accusations largely came in 2014 (though I believe there were a couple of allegations back in 2005). The conviction was in 2018. And merely "multiple women" doesn't really reflect the fact that it was over 50 women. --Crowell78 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I never added "height of the Me Too movement" phrase. Look back at the edit history. This was added and revised by multiple other editors and I simply preserved it here. Secondly, it is not me nor the previous editors who have chosen this #MeToo context. Check the references from multiple reliable sources (New York Times, Reuters, etc) that quite literally state that Cosby was a referendum on #MeToo and that his case was a critical touchpoint of the #MeToo movement. Just because you don't like the facts as stated by hundreds of reliable sources doesn't mean you can change reality to conform to your own worldview. As editors, we have to go by the reliable sources. To deny that #MeToo had anything to do with Cosby is hard to believe. Just as an aside, every single public figure you mentioned above (Steven Segal, Chris Hardwick, Andy Dick, Kevin Spacey, etc) were all publicly accused in 2018. That must be some coincidence. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyedited to read "during" as I didn't spot it saying "the height of" in supplied refs and didn't yet see above comment. It was bold and unopposed to reverting that aspect. I also went and converted them from plain links. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems reasonable for the Me Too movement to get some kind of mention in the lede, but Crowell is correct that the accusations against Cosby long predate the start of Me Too - so the information about this should be reworked. Personally, I would like to see the lede mention that the number of accusations exceeds fifty. I also feel that the term "misconduct" may not convey just how serious the accusations against Cosby are.

Again, I appreciate TrueQuantum's desire to tread carefully when dealing with a BLP article, but there isn't any dispute about the number or nature of the accusations against Cosby, and so there shouldn't be any controversy about using more specific language in the lede. It's a fact that Cosby has been accused by over fifty women, and that many of these women have accused him of assault. It's also a fact the Cosby has denied all of these accusations and has had his conviction overturned. I believe that we best maintain neutrality by mentioning all of these facts in the lede. Jpcase (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the facts as stated by hundreds of reliable sources doesn't mean you can change reality to conform to your own worldview. As editors, we have to go by the reliable sources. TrueQuantum, that is exactly why you probably should have discussed this issue and reached a consensus, before removing long-standing content that was neutrally worded and covered by endless reliable sources because it might have suited your point of view. I am not saying his conviction was unrelated to the metoo movement, but for context, the allegations were largely made in 2014 and his trial began before October 2017, which is when the movement began. I see that another editor initially added "during the metoo movement" and that it was removed, but you are the one who added the phrase "at the height of the metoo movement" to the lead. Anyway, we are getting a bit sidetracked here. I respect the decision of editors and I am fine with the current wording as it is prior to the mention of his conviction as I see its relevance, particularly after it was overturned. And Jpcase I concur. I've copy-edited the phrasing, though I've left out the number of accusers. It's not in the body and I do somewhat want to be on the conservative side given that this is a BLP. --Crowell78 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Accusations made against Cosby before 2018 were, according to the district attorney at the time, not actionable because there was "insufficient evidence." During 2018, at the height of the #MeToo movement and as documented by numerous reliable sources, there was changing public perceptions about how sexual assault accusations were to be handled. It was in this environment with unprecedented massive public opinion turning against Cosby that he was prosecuted and convicted in a court of law. Now it turns out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court looked back on his case and determined that his 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights were severely violated. That's a huge change because legally it means that his conviction was wrongful and that he is presumed innocent. That's how our system of law works, whether we like it or not. This to me is what objectively happened here. It's not my job as an editor to create this narrative. I gathered this by reading perhaps hundreds of reliable sources from different angles and perspectives as well as going through the entire court opinion from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which also outlines this timeline. This has been difficult for me as well, but the key is to separate opinion from fact and just take a look at everything objectively. I mention all of this because this is a biography of a living person and we have a duty, especially when contributing to the lede, to make whatever we say as objective as possible and neutral to the subject. It's not easy, but it must be done. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Your POV-pushing is getting tiresome. The accusations against Cosby as well as the trial predate the #metoo movement and it's always been known that nearly all of the allegations' statute of limitations had passed. It is still however a part of his notability and received voluminous coverage in RS, regardless of personal opinion. Please respect consensus and other editors, and stop removing reliably sourced and neutrally worded content from the lead which others have agreed should be included. Thank you. --Crowell78 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead focuses on this overturned conviction. I looked back to the article as it was prior to April 26, 2018, the day of the conviction, and and there’s a much broader discussion of the allegations then (stable version). Whilst the overturning must be mentioned why does it negate everything else that was thought relevant prior to the conviction? There is surely no linkage. DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally be in favor of restoring the more detailed language about the accusations that had been used in the lede last week. I'm not sure that any changes needed to be made to lede at all this week, aside from of course adding the fact that Cosby's conviction has been overturned and that Cosby has been released from prison.

Crowell mentioned that the number of accusers isn't currently mentioned in the body of the article, but that could easily be corrected - there are plenty of sources that mention the number of accusers.

I understand TrueQuantum's concerns, but there's a difference between how the accusations against Cosby are considered legally and how they're considered journalistically. Just because the conviction was overturned doesn't mean that journalists have stopped taking the accusations seriously. How the accusations are discussed here on Wikipedia should reflect how they are discussed by quality news sources, and those sources are, by and large, still treating the accusations as credible and highly notable. --Jpcase (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps taking into account the consensus and also keeping in line with the rest of the lede that focuses on Cosby's career in show business, we can include how the numerous accusations against Cosby caused him to lose various honors and awards and memberships. That would show factual impact these allegations had on him and how he has been shunned by his community without taking a POV stance. Those are, after all, simply facts not opinions. TrueQuantum (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s lead-worthy. Losing various honours and memberships is relatively trivial compared to the mere existence of the allegations which is the noteworthy point. i think the paragraph as it is now is about right and is the right balance per WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Jpcase, I agree with you, there's nothing wrong with mentioning the number of accusers and the particulars (something which was present in the lead even before a trial and conviction). However, for compromise I am ok with the current state of the lead. The only issue is the allegations were already highly publicized back in 2014-2015 after Hannibal Buress' bit went viral. More spotlight was given to them in 2018, because the Constad trial and conviction coincided with the #metoomovement. --Crowell78 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This concept is started to discuss here, Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_1:_Allegations_Against_an_Entertainer, noting the treatment of allegations is beyond this one article. Wikipedia is working on how to treat allegations that do not result in a conviction. Allegations are a dime a dozen in our current culture and are ongoing at various articles. This article is by no means the center of the MeToo movement, that is more to do with Harvey Weinstein. What is being discussed on this talk page is the desire by some editors to add additional weight to BLP for which the subject was exonerated. I guess we editors all pretty much think he is guilty (including this editor), that is not how it works per the 5 pillars. Be sure to read WP:BLPCRIME if you are still unsure. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You’ve missed the point. I’ll try to spell it out. There are two sets of relevant facts. (A) a specific case where he was convicted and then exonerated. (B) A large number of highly notable allegations widely covered which which do not relate to (A). Whether we think he is guilty or not is irrelevant. It is not WP:DUE to excise (B) from the lead. Equally it is untrue that (A) exonerates him from (B). It’s also a misreading of BLPCRIME to think it mandates the exclusion of notable allegations of crime. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's also fair to say that the Cosby situation isn't your average run-of-the-mill accusations against x entertainer. It's an extreme case, which in terms of severity, impact and coverage is comparable only to a few other unique examples in the entertainment industry. --Crowell78 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME does not support any of TrueQuantum's claims here. It does not give guidance on convictions that have been overturned. The subject was convicted of a crime based on his own sworn testimony in a deposition. That conviction was overturned because that testimony was purportedly offered only upon a promise that there would be no indictment. It's a complete perversion of language and logic to claim that--for the purposes of Wikipedia--therefore the subject goes back to being presumed innocent. The article should cover the facts, which includes that there was a conviction, why there was a conviction, that it was overturned, and why it was overturned. Unfortunately, the article currently omits much of that. -- Jibal (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"denies allegations" is heavily slanted POV

"Cosby has repeatedly denied the allegations and maintained his innocence." -- this completely ignores the fact that he admitted to the allegations under oath in his deposition, which is the whole basis of the PA Supreme Court releasing him because he supposedly did so after being promised by the DA that he would not be prosecuted. This article radically misrepresents the facts by treating this as a "he said, she (and she and she and she ...) said", when actually there is incontrovertible evidence that he did what he is accused of. -- Jibal (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Jibal, as far as I know Cosby has not admitted to assaulting women. He has admitted to illegally providing drugs to others but claims the women knowingly used them. He also claims that any sexual activity was consensual. I’m not saying we should believe him, but I have not seen any evidence that he admitted to the assault allegations. If there is such an admission, I would appreciate knowing about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine ... he admitted to some allegations and not others ... I took "the allegations" from the article, I didn't originate that language. His admissions resulted in his conviction. My view is that the way the article is organized and presented is misleading. -- Jibal (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't get it. Do you think it would be less misleading and more honest to say that Cosby was convicted after admitting to the allegations? That immediately makes everyone believe that Cosby admitted to sexual assault or drug facilitated sexual assault. In reality, Cosby admitted to supplying Quaaludes to women and that the women willingly took them with full knowledge and consent. In fact, that was how this article was originally written but it was changed because some editors believed it was too favorable to Cosby. It may be tempting to say, "Cosby admitted to sexual assault and was convicted and the conviction was merely overturned on a dumb technicality." But this is not Twitter or Fox News or CNN. This is Wikipedia and we have higher standards when it comes to neutrality and adhering to the facts no matter how reviled someone may be in the court of public opinion. The truth still matters. TrueQuantum (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Original heading redacted

(BLP violation removed)

Nonsense.

First, he was not found innocent. His conviction was vacated, i.e. undone, which is very different from a factual finding of innocence.

Second, the basis of vacating his conviction had nothing to do with whether he had done the acts for which he was convicted. It was because when he admitted to doing the acts in civil depositions, he had relied on the prosecutor's purported agreement not to charge him criminally as the basis to waive his Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate.

Finally, the fact that he admitted the acts makes clear he is not factually innocent; it is only the procedural error of trying him after he had been given assurances he would not be tried, and relied to his detriment on those assurances, that he was set free.

This doesn't even come close to "framing" which is understood to arrange for an innocent person to be convicted for acts he did not commit. Any discussion of framing is decidedly WP:FRINGE and has no place in a factual article. TJRC (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Whoa. First of all, I think it's pretty clear that IP is a troll and that nobody really believes there should be section in Cosby's biography that says "Bill Cosby was Framed." But I am also concerned with the way you have responded here that flies in the face of American jurisprudence and our basic rights to due process under the law. Have you noticed that when a verdict is reached, the jury returns either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty." It is not "Guilty or "Innocent." Why? Because all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is our most basic Constitutional right. When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Cosby's conviction, they literally mean that Cosby is presumed innocent. They do not declare people innocent in a court of law because it is unnecessary. What Cosby admitted to in his deposition is that he gave Andrea Constand benadryl pills and that she willingly took them out of her own full consent. He did not admit to drugging and raping her. So that's a glaring piece of misinformation here. I don't like Cosby and think he is most likely a creep. But how we treat Cosby here has implications for the rest of Wikipedia and our 5 pillars. It has implications for how we stick to our policies and our principles of neutrality. Mob mentality might be okay on Twitter and in the mainstream press, but we have higher standards here when it comes to neutrality and our WP:BLP guidelines as well as understanding our Constitutional rights to due process under the law. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm rebutting the claim of framing. As an attorney, I'm well aware of the presumption of innocence, and I'm also aware of what a "presumption" is and how it differs from an actual finding.

In the context here, it is not true that persons are not declared innocent in a court of law. Factual innocence has in fact been used as a basis to overturn a conviction, for example later DNA evidence turning up that shows the accused had not committed the crime. That was not the basis for the overturning of the conviction here.

In the rare case where there is a finding of factual innocence, that factual innocence would be worth discussing. That's not the case here. I'm not saying more than that. TJRC (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

As an attorney, you know that less than 2% of convictions are overturned. To overturn a conviction requires something seriously egregious that was done that requires a drastic remedy. You cite the use of DNA evidence to exonerate a wrongfully convicted person. There are also serious due process violations that result in a conviction being overturned. These are almost equally rare. Just as we cannot use a defendant's right to plead the 5th Amendment as a bias against him or her, we cannot say "oh the court didn't declare this person innocent so he must in fact be guilty and was let out on a technicality" pejorative either. We cannot take a fundamental principle of the Constitution and turn it against a citizen. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure you get what I'm saying. Let me break it down:

Courts sometimes do indeed find accused to be factually innocent.

This is not one of those cases. No court found Cosby to be factually innocent.

Therefore, this Wikipedia article should not include a passage stating that Cosby was found factually innocent.

Is there something there you disagree with? I honestly can't tell what your objection is. If you're looking to digress into a discussion apart from the article, that's off-topic and I'm not all that interested in going there. TJRC (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of your concern, everything that TJRC wrote is correct, valid, and factual. "Whoa" is not an argument. "So that's a glaring piece of misinformation here." -- no, that's projection. Cosby was convicted on the basis of his statements under oath in his disposition. "Have you noticed that when a verdict is reached, the jury returns either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty." It is not "Guilty or "Innocent." Why? Because all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty." -- this logic is backwards; it's "guilty" when the defendant has been proven guilty, and "not guilty" when the defendent has not been proven guilty, which is not the same as proving them innocent, as the defense has no obligation to do so. You (along with many) misunderstand how to interpret the American legal principle of presumption of innocence which is grounded in the fact that the state holds great power--notably, it only applies to officers of the court, and certainly does not apply to Wikipedia, science, rational discussion and analysis of facts, etc. "When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Cosby's conviction, they literally mean that Cosby is presumed innocent." -- no, they most certainly do not ... not figuratively (which would be the appropriate word here) and certainly not literally. "I don't like Cosby and think he is most likely a creep." -- this is completely irrelevant. "It has implications for how we stick to our policies and our principles of neutrality." -- this is handwaving that is disconnected with what those pillars and principles actually are. "Mob mentality might be okay on Twitter and in the mainstream press" -- ridiculous hyperbole that, along with similar previous comments like "to change the standard of what constitutes the presumption of innocence is something that is only done in authoritarian regimes like North Korea and the Soviet Union" highlights the irrelevance of your contributions. This sort of thing may work in trial court, but is out of place here. WP:NOTAFORUM WP:AGF -- Jibal (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've redacted the parent comment here as a) trolling, b) likely block evasion, and c) a WP:BLP violation against a notable politician. While the subsequent comments are in good faith, please be wary of feeding the trolls, and please strike BLP violations where you see them. Note that this page has already been protected once because of the same anonymous editor's behavior. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A minor point but the subject of this article is not a politician. -- Jibal (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The BLP violation wasn't against Cosby. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This page feels heavily subjective and biased in Cosby's favor.

This page feels biased in Cosby's favor.

-Not mentioning the allegations in the lead feels like a significant oversight. There's a way to mention the allegations in the lead objectively. (i.e. William Henry Cosby Jr. (/ˈkɒzbi/; born July 12, 1937) is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and author who had an active career for over six decades, starting in 1961. Cosby's greatest television success was the sitcom The Cosby Show which ran from 1984 to 1992. In the mid-2010's, over 60 women accused Cosby of sexual assault."

-Saying the allegations became "highly publicized during the Me Too movement" is not accurate. The allegations against Cosby became heavily publicized 3 years before the Me Too movement, the mentioning of the Me Too movement implies that the Me Too movement was solely responsible for Cosby going to prison.

-Saying "He was imprisoned until the conviction was vacated in 2021 by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for violations of Cosby's 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment due process rights" feels like a misleading oversimplification that implies that he was initially framed and subsequently declared innocent.

-The paragraph about the allegations in the opening is also significantly shorter than the other paragraphs and doesn't mention the volume of allegations (over 60) nor their substantial, permanent impact on Cosby's cultural image.

-Making "sexual assault cases" a subsection under "Legal issues" when the assault allegations are clearly prevalent enough to Cosby's legacy and reputation that they merit their own section.

There's a way to neutrally acknowledge how significant the allegations are to Cosby's legacy. OJ Simpson was never convicted of murder but it is still mentioned in the lead on his Wikipedia page. We are not here to claim Cosby is definitely 100% guilty but we're also not here to whitewash his scandal and sanitize his Wikipedia page to make him look like he was framed.

Also, this isn't relevant to the allegations but "comedian" is listed right after "stand up comedian" in the lead which feels redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaprocky7121 (talk • contribs) 22:46, July 10, 2021 (UTC)

I have similar concerns. I came to this article the other day looking for information about his crimes, since he was just released from jail. This article does not succinctly say that the jist of his misconduct is allegedly drugging and violating people. That's the wording the Associated Press uses in several articles, for example, this one. I'd be in favor of working this or a similar wording into more places in this article. I suspect the reason it has not been worked in yet is WP:BLP, so obviously we must be careful saying this. But he is a public figure, and reliable sources such as AP are saying this, so there is definitely an argument to be made that we don't have to be so gentle about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not merely alleged ... he admitted to (some of) the charges under oath in his deposition, which is why he was convicted and was the basis for the PA Supreme Court releasing him. This article is extremely misleading by repeatedly mischaracterizing the facts. -- Jibal (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said in one of the previous talk page discussion above, I don't feel that any changes needed to be made to the article's lede over the past few weeks, aside from, of course, adding mention of the fact that Cosby was released from prison and had his conviction overturned. I'm not of the opinion that any recent removals of content from the lede were needed, and so I would support restoring the lede to how it was written on June 30, as seen here. That version of the lede mentions that the conviction was overturned and that Cosby was released, but it also mentions the number of accusers and the details of the accusations. Some additions to that version could certainly be made - it would be reasonable to keep the current version of the lede's discussion about the 5th and 14th amendments, and perhaps #metoo could continue to be discussed in the lede in some context. But I do feel that the lede ought to discuss the accusations in more detail than it currently does.

Also, it's worth noting that the lede, as currently written, is inaccurate, as it suggests that the accusations against Cosby originated in 2014. The accusations were first made long before then. 2014 is only notable because that was the year when Hannibal Buress brought greater public awareness to the accusations. The June 30 version of the lede explains this, which is another reason that I support going back to that version. --Jpcase (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The lede is very sensitive place for all BLPs because it is in such a prominent location. As such, it is our responsibility as editors to make sure that it is as neutral and objective as humanly possible. Placing undue weight on the salaciousness of accusations rather than on the judicial outcomes of aforementioned accusations sets a dangerous precedent for all BLPs throughout Wikipedia. I feel like I am put in a very awkward position here. I don't want to defend Cosby nor do I want to protect his image. I mean who really does? But for better or for worse, we cannot let accusation culture completely overturn our policies on how we handle BLPs. Anyone can make accusations against someone else, especially if the person being accused is a high profile celebrity or public figure. I am hard pressed to name one prominent person who hasn't been accused at this point. We have accused individuals serving as President of the United States (Joe Biden accused of digitally penetrating Tara Reade in the halls of Congress, former President Trump of more than 100+ rapes), as Supreme Court Justices (Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas). We live in a time where accusations are so highly publicized and so common that to put them in the lead of every high profile person seems like a violation of our 5 pillars and our pursuit of neutrality. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

”Placing undue weight on the salaciousness of accusations rather than on the judicial outcomes of aforementioned accusations” is a false dichotomy which is irrelevant here. What we have is well evidenced and substantial allegations reported in depth and credibly by reliable sources but which won’t reach court because of statutes of limitations. The lack of a court decision in those specific circumstances has never been and was never intended to be a reason to exclude well-sourced and widely reported information in Wikipedia. Per WP:NPOV, to exclude it is contrary to neutrality and subverts BLP. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe you took my quote out of context. The accusations are laid out in extensive detail in the body of the article under the section "Sexual assault cases." I am saying that such extensive detail is inappropriate in the lede, which should faithfully summarize the key points. Stating that "Cosby became the subject of numerous sexual assault allegations" in the lede is already quite strong and almost stretching the limits of what we allow for BLPs. To argue that it should be much worse for Cosby in the lede doesn't really make much sense to me when you examine our well established policies. TrueQuantum (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

There is a glaring omission on the lead section of this page. There is no mention at all of the legal issues section, which spans three subsections, including the sexual assault cases Isn't that significant to be included in the lead to achieve NPOV? There is enough coverage of this, and frankly, what he has recently been on the news for. I think it should be discussed and explored, and text reflecting this should be added on the lead to acknowledge it. Even if the decision was overturned, it is still notable enough to be included as event in Bill Cosby's life. It is important to show the history, and then say the decision was overturned. The New York Times has an article about it.Caudaequinas (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As of now, it has been re-added. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I see that the lead has gotten much better with ample discussion on the talk page. These kinds of omissions shouldn't be taken likely. I feel like there is an effort to "soften" the additions about his allegations and imprisonment.Caudaequinas (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021

The term "comedian" is listed twice in the first sentence by accident, therefore it need to be removed. "Comedian" doesn’t need to be listed twice, it needs to be fixed from "American stand-up comedian, comedian, actor, and author" to "American stand-up comedian, actor and author". 73.61.19.34 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"Bill Hanks" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bill Hanks. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 3#Bill Hanks until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sexual assault conviction in the lead.

Regarding this edit, in addition to what I said in my edit summary (it is obviously a massive part of his notability and therefore cannot be omitted), it is important to understand that the conviction was vacated; that is not the same as him being acquitted. There is no question that he committed the acts he was convicted of (he admitted as such and has not changed his story on that; it is simply not in dispute), so the fact that his conviction was vacated has no bearing on whether we should mention it in the lead or not. --Aquillion (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I went to undo for the same reason, but you beat me to it by a few seconds. I think it's good to remember what Kohlrabi Pickle said in Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 5 § POV lede: The effect of invalidating his conviction is a legal fiction - to the law, he is not and has never been a convict. As a matter of reality, however, the lower court's ruling obviously was in force for these 3 years, and Cosby lived and was treated as a convict. To that I would add: WP:BLP binds us to do many things, but it does not bind us to ignore reality when reliable sources document something. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the very important information to the lead section. Somebody is trying to bury this prominent part of Cosby's life story. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

What about putting Serial Rapist inlead, since he has already lost many law suits and nearly 70 women have accused him, or in the very least, "Alleged Serial Rapist" ?2603:6011:DD01:5046:2509:6FB7:C8A0:D491 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If you look in the archives this has been discussed a lot. The consensus seems to be that he is notable because his work in comedy, acting and writing, so that is what gets mentioned in the lead sentence. The accusations and lawsuits would not make him notable if he was not already notable, so they do not get mentioned. You will need to establish consensus with a bunch of editors to override that at this point. I myself am neutral, I could have it or not. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

The refname
<ref name="Allred_number_accusers_more_coming_forward"/>
was added to the Judith Huth section but was never defined. It should be removed and replaced with {{CN|date=October 2021}}. Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Korean War service

Cosby served in the United States Navy in hospitals three years after the Korean War, there are no reliable sources found as of yet establish that he had a defining role in the Korean War. He joined the navy in 1956, three years after the Korean War was over. Accordingly, "Category:United States navy personnel of the Korean War" was removed until a defining role is established. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

I want 'convicted rapist' added to the list of titles to Cosby's initial description [first] sentence. 2603:6010:5601:C200:3D49:2DAC:1956:408 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See discussions above and in the archives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

Cosby is no longer active on the entertaiment industry, there's is no need to keep the title photo up to date, so it seems more appropriate to me to replace the image with one during a better moment in his career where he was still active rather than one where he wasn't. Latyelcop (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support older image is more appropriate. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Allegations in lede

I think the allegations against him are too significant to not be mentioned in the lede in some capacity. Also to put the allegations as a subsection under “legal issues” feels dismissive of how significant they are to his legacy. These accusations will be in the first sentence of his obituary one day, I think we should find an objective way to mention them in the lede and give them their own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00E:75AF:EC95:F7EE:D7DF:F7BC (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The allegations (which clearly had a dramatic impact on his life and career) are currently discussed at the end of the lead section. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition, they are discussed in great detail in the "Legal issues" section of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr William Henry Cosby Jr?

Should we not have his title in the first line of the article? His doctorate is not honorary, but a legitimate academic qualification. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If he were an MD or a professional college teacher I would support. But he is 1st and foremost an actor/humorist, and I can't. I'd have to hunt through wp:honorifics... and I did.Shajure (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2022

Can you find a better picture of him? That picture from 2011 is not his best photograph. The man is a legend, and his image should be better respected. 174.209.199.200 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If you have an image in mind that meets WP:Image use policy, link to it here and reopen the request. Cannolis (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion above suggesting a better photo. Since there has been no objections and a call for a better photo I am putting the 1965 photo up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

And there was support, as well as no objection. I also think this is much more appropriate image.Shajure (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Bit insensitive to call him a "legend", don't you think? --92.30.65.41 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

who is singer?

under the active cases section, a sentence reads: "Singer's claim was made in a notice of demurrer."

however, there is no prior mention or identification of anyone by that name.

i feel like other wikipedia articles always identify someone by their full name before referring to them by surname alone thoughout the rest of the article. this is not the case with "Singer"...

can this be removed or corrected since the current context leaves the reader wondering?? Snarevox (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Singer" is Marty Singer, a Cosby attorney. I fixed the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Any recent appearances?

The infobox currently says Cosby was active from 1961 to 2018. Has Cosby has made any public appearances since his release from prison last year? 92.15.144.174 (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Bill Cosby Working On A TV Show <--- He is, at least, actively failing, but active in his career. We should list him as active, until he says he is retired. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

wp:BLP - allegations, conviction was overturned

I encourage caution: wp:BLP applies Shajure (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted 2 sources

I rarely kill sources, but the 2 listed for Cosby's retirement date did not contain his retirement.Shajure (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2023

I believe the following portion under Impact of sexual assault allegations on Cosby's legacy is a little out of place and could be moved or removed entirely:

Famous rapper yeat still rapped about him in his song "how it go".

It also awkwardly breaks up the ref. MrGVSV (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious vandalism, why has it not been removed yet? 91.153.52.49 (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image consensus

I feel as though there should be a consensus on which picture to use for the infobox. One user saying "He's not dead so why use a historical portrait" in the revision history is not a consensus.

So what do you think? Should we keep the more recent photo of Cosby, or should we use a 1960s historical photograph? 209.93.242.250 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox picture choices

Cast your !vote

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3

I think we should choose an image that represents how the world best knows Cosby. Of the three images, I prefer #3 for this reason. That's just my opinion, and I do not object to the other images. Rklawton (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

1. 3 per above nom. --209.93.242.250 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the most recent image should be used, (which imo is #1), that's S.O.P. here. When a famous person dies, then we usually change the infobox image to an image of the subject in their prime or most recognizable. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You might hate this, but I think people should change it whenever they feel like it. Different people we see Cosby different ways, so there is no perfect picture for the infobox. Just let people change it when they get tired for the current one. We could also see if we could set it up to change every now and then automatically. Perhaps monthly. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right, that's not going to happen. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)